492. The Governing Council considered the draft report on the work of its fifth session at its 70th, 74th and 75th meetings.

493. In the course of the adoption of the report, one delegation stated that certain statements contained in paragraph 35 of the report were blatant falsehoods designed to mask the unattractive political course pursued by the leaders of the country whose delegation had uttered them, the only country in the world in which the leaders were open apologists of world war and proclaimed an expansionist militarist course as their long-term goal. As far back as September 1959 the leader of that State had announced: "We must subjugate the world. Our aim is the world at large, where we shall build a powerful State." It was he who had made the gloomy proclamation: "A war? Very well! We should not be afraid of war ... If half of the human race perishes in war this does not matter. There is no reason to worry even if only one third of humanity survives.": That was an extremely sinister prospect. For many years that country had been conducting a national campaign of "preparation for war". Reports of the United Nations Commission on Disarmament indicated how that countx7ls military expenditure had grown until it accounted for more than 40 per cent of the national budget. It was thus apparent that that country's least concern was the maintenance of peace and the protection of the environment. Its attitude to all the most vital questions of international relations was profoundly negative: since 1971, when its rights in the United Nations had been restored, it had made no constructive proposal and taken no constructive initiative to strengthen world peace, but had opposed or failed to support a number of proposals and resolutions designed to achieve that goal. It had not signed a single international agreement on the limitation of the arms race or the cessation of nuclear weapons tests. Its attempts to disrupt détentes prevent disarmament, sow distrust and enmity between States, and provoke world war were a major threat to all peace-loving peoples.

494. Two delegations endorsed the view that the parts of paragraph 35 referred to by the previous speaker were out of place in the report and harmful to the spirit of co-operation and understanding which predominated in the Council.

495. In reply, another speaker stated that the attack on the contents of paragraph 35 was totally unjustifiable. The paragraph summarized the views expressed by a delegation during the debate, and all 58 members of the Governing Council had a right to equal treatment in that respect. It was precisely social imperialism which used international forums to preach sham disarmament and sham détente as important pre-conditions for environmental protection. His delegation' s exposure of those who preached d6tente and disarmament while actually engaging in arms expansion and preparations for war had been met with lies, slander and baseless countercharges. The previous speaker's Government had stationed hundreds of thousands of troops, and established many overt and covert military bases, abroad; it clamoured every day for disarmament, yet, far from reducing its military strength, had gone all out to develop both strategic nuclear and conventional forces, to a total of over 4 million men. Its military budget was the largest in the world. Social imperialism was the most dangerous source of a new war in the contemporary world. It practised aggression, expansion and subversive activities, which created tension all over the world; recent events in Angola, Egypt, the Sudan and Zaire were cases in point. For the past 20 years, social imperialism had continued to expand and, although it styled itself the "natural ally" of the developing countries, facts had proved it to be the most dangerous enemy of the third world.

496. The Governing Council adopted the present report at its 75th meeting, on 25 May 1977, subject to the incorporation of amendments approved at the 74th and 75th meetings.

497. The Executive Director informed the Council that the financial implications of the decisions adopted at its fifth session amounted to some $2.4 million; the cost would have to be met from the Fund programme reserve, or through adjustments of the apportionment of funds up to a maximum of 20 per cent of each budget line, in accordance with the provisions of decision 98 B (V). 44/